Clandestine removal and brand-name misuse claims fail without corroborative evidence; only credit on short input remains reversible.

A demand alleging misuse of another concern's brand name to deny Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was not sustainable where it rested only on a few printed bags and lacked independent corroboration; the assessee's explanation that old bags were used by mistake was accepted. A shortage of soda ash, by itself, was held insufficient to infer clandestine manufacture and removal of finished goods, so the related duty demand was set aside, though the Cenvat credit taken on the short input remained reversible to that extent. As the duty demands failed and no exemption-condition breach was established, the penalty on the corporate appellant was also set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of duty against the two units for allegedly using the brand name of another concern so as to lose the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was sustainable; (ii) Whether the shortage of soda ash justified a finding of clandestine manufacture and removal of finished goods and the consequential duty demand; (iii) Whether penalty on the corporate appellant was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the demand of duty against the two units for allegedly using the brand name of another concern so as to lose the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was sustainable.

Analysis: The demand was based only on the presence of a few printed bags in a truck and in the finishing hall. The surrounding facts showed that the goods were manufactured in the appellant unit, and there was no independent evidence to establish that the other two concerns had manufactured and cleared goods under the brand name of the first appellant. The explanation that old printed bags were mistakenly used was found acceptable in the absence of corroborating material.

Conclusion: The duty demands raised on this issue were not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the shortage of soda ash justified a finding of clandestine manufacture and removal of finished goods and the consequential duty demand.

Analysis: Although soda ash was found short and credit had been availed on it, the mere shortage of one input, without other supporting evidence, was held insufficient to infer clandestine manufacture and removal of the finished products. However, the credit taken on the short quantity of soda ash was required to be reversed or repaid to that extent.

Conclusion: The duty demand on alleged clandestine manufacture and removal was set aside, but the proportionate Cenvat credit relating to the short soda ash remained payable in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty on the corporate appellant was sustainable.

Analysis: Since the findings of clandestine manufacture and the related duty demands were not sustained, and no violation of the exemption condition was established against the corporate appellant, there was no basis to maintain the penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded substantially, with the impugned duty demands and penalties set aside, while only the proportionate Cenvat credit on the short soda ash was directed to be paid.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand of clandestine manufacture or loss of exemption cannot be sustained on the basis of isolated bag markings or shortage of one input alone, in the absence of corroborative evidence; however, credit already taken on short inputs remains reversible.

---